16 July 2005
mail this article
This article is part of the series: London 7/7 false flag
- 2 - 3
Was London attack false flag operation? - part 2
Facts among the suspicions
By Daan de Wit
Some journalists suspect that the attacks in London were not carried out by Muslim terrorists, but by a Western secret service that works according to the motto 'divide and conquer'. In this article we call attention to the most important of the facts that are being alleged.
This article has been translated into English by Marienella Meulensteen.
Radio announcer Alex Jones and author Paul Joseph Watson together were the first to pay broad attention to the pronouncements of the BBC about the former employee of the anti-terrorism department of Scotland Yard, Peter Power. Nowadays, he is president of Visor Consultants, which at the time of the attack carried out an exercise that dealt with exactly what became reality on the spot, as described in part 1 of this DaanSpeak. In a television interview [WMV], Power says about that moment: 'We had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real'. The big question regarding this statement is - why did the participants in this exercise-that-became-reality suddenly begin carrying out the game in reality instead of immediately packing up and leaving, and moreover - how were they able to.
Exercise director is mastermind behind attacks
In a follow-up article, Jones and Watson discuss the email that Power tends to send lately to people who ask him questions about this particular exercise. The reaction contains indications that confirm what the authors wrote earlier, namely that the attack on London was a false flag operation, thus an operation that blames the attack on the enemy. Power writes in his reaction: 'In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events'. Jones and Watson react a bit puzzled: 'As we have asked before, if the exercise was a mere coincidence and was not related to any government agency or command structure which was involved in managing the aftermath of the attacks, then why did the crisis managers respond to the real thing? If they were actively involved in the command structure that managed the crisis, then they must have been hired by a sector of government in the first place. Power himself has worked for Scotland Yard'.
Jones and Watson note the only tentatively possible conclusion: 'The company that Visor were running the exercise for is not named by Power. If Visor switched to real time management of the bombings, who else could the company be but London Underground or one of their affiliates'? If the exercises were actually carried out for and with the employees of the London Underground or one of their affiliates, then it means that the planner of this exercise is directly connected with the attacks. The planner could have used the participants in the exercise with or without their knowledge. The thought behind the conclusion of Jones and Watson is that the director of the exercises must be the mastermind behind the attacks. If this is the truth, it automatically means that the bombing suspects are innocent and part of a cover story with two possible scenarios:
Bombing suspects possibly part of cover story 7/7
1. The bombing suspects did not place any bombs at all and fell prey to bombs that were placed earlier, just like the other victims.
2. The bombing suspects joined the exercise, and without realizing it they carried real explosives instead of dummy explosives.
The first scenario comes to mind when you see the footage of the families of the alleged bombing suspects. Their disbelief is so large that it lessens the acceptability that the offenders were the culprits. The bombing suspects were people of whom it was totally unknown that they were the least bit fanatical, "He didn't do anything other than British culture", cites CNN. Interviews on television showed total disbelief; it was said that Shehzad Tanweer was only interested in watching cricket on T.V. A BBC article went over it again: 'Parents at the school told the BBC the teaching assistant had been highly regarded by both children and parents'. The man had a child, just like another team member. 'One neighbor said: "He didn't seem to be an extremist. He was not one to talk about religion. He was generally a very nice bloke". Despite the tributes, Mohammad Sidique Khan detonated enough explosives on a Circle Line train to kill seven people. Documents belonging to him were found near the Edgeware Road blast'. One of the four wore long garments and another was described as being very religious... In the recent past there have been Palestinians who, despite a good education, even despite having young children, committed suicide missions anyway. So also the four alleged London perpetrators could have done it, but it does not sound very convincing. The four also had no file with the British secret service either. Be that as it may, Muslims in England and in the U.S. expressed themselves strongly against the attacks and in doing so tried to limit the damage that was done to their image.
The second scenario starts to take shape when reading this sentence: 'The four were captured on CCTV cameras at King’s Cross Thameslink station, laughing together and carrying rucksacks, minutes before they set off for their targets at 8.30 am on July 7'. '[The] men were chatting "as though they were going on a hiking holiday"', writes Sky News. This second scenario becomes clearer with the remarkable news that the English newspaper The Mirror opens with today, namely that the bombing suspects had return train tickets on them: 'EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE? Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay and display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of 'Allah Akhbar'? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?' The newspaper deduces in a neatly politically correct way that the bombing suspects were deceived by Al-Qaeda. But Al-Qaeda does not exist - Bin-Laden videos are bogus - Osama bin Laden is dead we wrote earlier and so says also Tony Blair: '"Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach."' The Mirror: 'A security source said: "If the bombers lived and were caught they'd probably have cracked. Would their masters have allowed that to happen? We think not". The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding a train at Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry "Allah Akhbar!" - "God is great" - usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb. Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items. Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material.[...] Our source disclosed: "The theory that they were not a suicide squad is gathering pace. They were the weakest link.'
Even before it was known that the bombing suspects carried return train tickets, Jones and Watson write in point two of How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps: 'Hire four Arabs and tell them they're taking part in an important exercise to help defend London from terrorist attacks. Strap them with rucksacks filled with deadly explosives. Tell the Arabs the rucksacks are dummy explosives and wouldn't harm a fly. [...] If at any stage of the attack your Arabs get caught, tell the police it was part of an exercise.' But if all goes well, it is a question of a push of the button. This last possibility is supported by information from Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA's counter-terrorism center [who] told The Guardian that "two unexploded bombs" were recovered as well as "mechanical timing devices".'
London bombing suspects victims of roleplay exercise
These days all sorts of people are being arrested in Pakistan and Egypt. This fits into the working methods of Western secret services who often work together with foreign agents. Something similar could be seen with the bomb attack on the WTC in 1993 when six people were killed. We reported earlier that the plan at the time was for bombing expert and FBI informant Emad Salem to secretly use dummy explosives in the bomb that he fabricated together with the group he had infiltrated. 'The FBI did not stick to the deal. The bomb exploded, so to speak, with the knowledge of the FBI. The official story of the crime was quickly found: The criminals were evil Muslims', says the German ex-Minister and secret service expert Andreas von Bülow. Evil muslims are exactly what the FBI again is looking for, to carry out exercises together. That came out Wednesday in the document-of-the-week of the document site The Smoking Gun: 'The bureau is seeking bids from firms that can provide at least 60 civilian role players to staff these training scenarios [...]'. The conclusion of Jones and Watson about the London bombing suspects follows that line. They write in their newsletter: 'It's beyond doubt that these four Muslims were framed. They were most likely hired as MI6 spies, sent to Pakistan and then brought back and told they were to take part in an important exercise to test national security. Give them the rucksacks, get them on the trains and then detonate the bombs remotely. Do you really believe for a second that guys with 8 month babies and guys who taught disabled schoolchildren would want to blow themselves up and kill other innocent people'?
London exercise ideal cover for criminal plot
John Leonard continues with the scenario in which an exercise is used as a cover. He writes: 'Terrorism expert Webster G. Tarpley gives an example in his 9/11 Synthetic Terror: 'Staff exercises or command exercises are perfect for a rogue network which is forced to conduct its operations using the same communications and computer systems used by other officers who are not necessarily party to the illegal operation, coup or provocation as it may be. A putschist officer may be working at a console next to another officer who is not in on the coup, and who might indeed oppose it if he knew about it. The putschist's behavior is suspicious: what the hell is he doing? The loyal officer looks over and asks the putschist about it. The putschist cites a staff maneuver for which he is preparing. The loyal officer concludes that the putschist's activities are part of an officially sanctioned drill, and his suspicions are allayed. The putschist may even explain that participation in the staff exercise requires a special security clearance which the loyal officer does not have. The conversation ends, and the putschist can go on with his treasonous work'.
This could well be the way it went on September 11 when the war games made possible what otherwise would have been impossible. You cannot make thousands of people who are responsible for the defense of the U.S. part of your conspiracy. But you can disable their systems by carrying out massive exercises that happen to mimic exactly what then suddenly starts to happen for real, and people who want to come into action realize for instance that because of the exercise the jet fighters are not available, etc. But that concerns September 11 about which we already filled many pages. The question is now:'How could this have worked in London? Mr. Powers would be like the loyal agent without the super secret clearance; his job in the drill was to unwittingly help provide camouflage. Several participants could be given the "play-acting" role of terrorists who plant bags with "fake" bombs in them at the appropriate point in the scenario—but this time, real bombs were substituted. Whether witting or not, they would run no risk of arrest—it was "just a drill". [...]', writes John Leonard.
Bombs made with military explosives
Another indication for the suspicion that 7/7 concerns a false flag operation, comes from The Times which writes on July 12: 'A SINGLE bombmaker using high-grade military explosives is believed to be responsible for building the four devices that killed more than 50 people last week, The Times can reveal. [...] “The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying,” said Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, the chief of the French anti-terrorist police, who was in London to help Scotland Yard'. Earlier, the English police said that the bombs consisted of 'not homemade material'. But eight days after the attacks, the Dutch NRC writes in an article on the front page that English police sources have stated that the bombs were 'probably made with explosive materials that commonly are for sale at pharmacists or druggists'. This reeks of damage control, glossing over of indecorous information. In his book 9/11 - Synthetic Terror Made in USA, author Webster Tarpley points out the phenomenon of honest reporting in the hours and days after an attack, information that is later amended and affected by spin and damage control. Think also of the news about bomb explosions in the WTC before the towers collapsed on September 11.
Train bombings a trademark of Western psy-war units
'Train bombings like London 7/7 and Madrid 3/11 are a speciality of NATO psy-war units. The expert on this since 1978 has been Webster Tarpley, who shows in his latest book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, how the bombing of Bologna Stazione Centrale in 1980 by the so-called Red Brigades is of one cloth with the Madrid bombings. The supposed "communist terrorist" Red Brigades were phonies, a patsy outfit created by Lodge P2, the neofascist shadow government with Italy in its grip. The Madrid train bombing suspects were police agents, also run by a neo-fascist falange: as Tarpley notes, one suspect admitted he worked for the old guard, the Guardia Civil, Unidad Central Operativa', writes John Leonard, the editor of Tarpley's book [Also see: Coverage of speeches by DaanSpeak and Webster Tarpley about September 11 in the Rode Hoed, May 2005].
Sign up for the free mailing list
12 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4
When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.
10 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - 3
8 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2
In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.
7 September 2013
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1
On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on.
28 August 2012
Daan de Wit (DeepJournal) interviewt Webster Tarpley op het Magneetfestival
Het Magneetfestival gaat de diepte in met vier interviews. Daan de Wit interviewt Webster Tarpley, Albert Spits, en Mike Donkers.